Re: [time-nuts] Connector options for HP10811A?

[Robert DiRosario]

Have you used the Mouser part you listed?  When you look at the spec 
sheet it only shows 8 of the 15 pins installed in the connector.


https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/123/307-030-520-201_-_EDAC_Card_Edge_Connector-1653445.pdf


I have used this, and it show all the pins installed:

https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/123/305-030-500-202_-_EDAC_Card_Edge_Connector-1652975.pdf


Graham / KE9H listed:

https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/123/306-015-500-102_-_EDAC_Card_Edge_Connector-1653038.pdf

which also shows all of the pin installed.

Why would they not install all of the pins?  If they do install all of 
them why do they show some missing, when they show them installed on the 
other two products?  I would like to use the through hole pins socket.


Robert, KA3ZYX

On 04/08/2020 10:06 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:

Hi

The connector is a very normal 2 x 15 position 0.156” spaced edge connector. 
You can buy them on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0721L5VSD/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 


 From Mouser:

https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/587-307-030-520-201 


 From various people on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Card-edge-connector-row-30-Pin-3-96mm-pitch-805-slot-solder-PCB-2x15-socket-NMGG/293411808673?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=592241315857&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649
 


https://www.ebay.com/itm/TRW-Cinch-Connector-252-18-30-301-Lot-of-6/122819145572?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649
 


( ummm …. errr …. no, not that last one, it’s 18 pin … I only counted the pins 
*after* they got here :) )

or from a variety of other sources.

If you dig a bit there is even a guy selling the full adapter for the 10811, 
(for a crazy price) but not identifying it
as working with the 10811


Bob





On Apr 8, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Frank O'Donnell  wrote:

I recently bought an HP10811A oscillator on eBay, only belatedly realizing that 
it's designed to interface to a 15-contact connector that the manual identifies 
as a CINCH 250-15-30-210 or equivalent.

A search turns up a vendor in Massachusetts called BMI Surplus Inc., that 
appears to have these in stock in new condition at a minimal price. The only 
hitch is that BMI's website says they're closed down due to COVID-19 and will 
not process any orders until their state government authorizes businesses to 
return. (And at this point, it's anyone's guess when that will be.)

To get going with the oscillator, it occurs to me that I could rig up a few 
small alligator clips and use them on the required contacts for the time being. 
Any other thoughts or suggestions on how to work this? By any chance are there 
other known sources for the right size of connector that might be operating 
right now?

Thanks much,

Frank O'Donnell
South Pasadena, California





___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Connector options for HP10811A?

[Robert DiRosario]

I just ordered some from Mouser in November, this is it:

https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/587-305-50-030

They list 41 in stock, for 1 to 9 the price is $8.43

Robert


On 04/08/2020 09:39 PM, Frank O'Donnell wrote:
I recently bought an HP10811A oscillator on eBay, only belatedly 
realizing that it's designed to interface to a 15-contact connector 
that the manual identifies as a CINCH 250-15-30-210 or equivalent.


A search turns up a vendor in Massachusetts called BMI Surplus Inc., 
that appears to have these in stock in new condition at a minimal 
price. The only hitch is that BMI's website says they're closed down 
due to COVID-19 and will not process any orders until their state 
government authorizes businesses to return. (And at this point, it's 
anyone's guess when that will be.)


To get going with the oscillator, it occurs to me that I could rig up 
a few small alligator clips and use them on the required contacts for 
the time being. Any other thoughts or suggestions on how to work this? 
By any chance are there other known sources for the right size of 
connector that might be operating right now?


Thanks much,

Frank O'Donnell
South Pasadena, California





___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com

and follow the instructions there.




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OCXO and fluctuations after EFC adjustment

[jimlux]

On 4/10/20 2:31 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:







At this time, I will give my usual speech about IMHO the fact that
since the invention of the DDS on a chip, EFC should no longer be used 
for high performance oscillators.


Rick N6RK


Yes..

The only case I can think of is where the oscillator is being directly 
multiplied up and one cannot tolerate the spurs from a DDS.  There are 
folks who believe that this is the case for generating the downlink 
carrier in a deep space transponder.


However, I believe that even in that incredibly niche application, one 
can design a DDS to have minimal spurs in the area close to the carrier. 
In fact, just today, a transponder on Bepi Colombo makes a close 
approach to Earth on its way to Mercury that implements just such a scheme.


I can conceive that there might be an application where the "move the 
spurs around" approach wouldn't work or would be too complex.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Chris Caudle]

On Thu, April 9, 2020 11:20 pm, Hal Murray wrote:
> Suppose I measure the edge to edge times and make a histogram.

How precisely can you measure the period.  You would be using the rising
edge as start time and stop time, with no dead time, i.e. measure the time
of every period?

> Can I get jitter out of that?

I think that is typically referrred to as period jitter in the literature
I have seen. I think you could in theory derive any other view of the
timing error if you had enough measurements, and if the measurements had
enough precision and accuracy.  I think in practice that is difficult to
achieve, otherwise there would not be need for DMTD, PLL based mix down
for phase noise measurement, Miles's fancy quad ADC instruments, etc., you
could just use a time interval counter for everything.

Most of the jitter terminology has come from the digital communications
industries, because that is typically where you care about edge position,
vs. phase noise in an application where you care about modulation, noise
in an RF transmitter or receiver, etc.

This app note has an overview of the definitions of the various ways to
measure jitter:
https://www.sitime.com/sites/default/files/gated/AN10007-Jitter-and-measurement.pdf

I have some small quibbles, like in section 2.1.2 it begins with the
statement "Because the period jitter from a clock is random in nature with
Gaussian distribution"
I would rather phrase it "If the period jitter from a clock is random in
nature" because there are a lot of ways that systematic noise can get
into a clock and make the jitter behavior not random, or at least
non-Gaussian.

> Where is the clock recovery loop?

I think that comes from a lot of the measurement techniques where you
don't care if the clock you are measuring is slightly off of nominally
perfect frequency, because the receiver will have a PLL which will track
the average value of the clock, what you care about is short term
variation around that average value, so the measurement techniques utilize
a PLL (either physically implemented, or simulated in software) to mimic
the behavior of the receiver PLL so that you effectively ignored slow
variation in the average period time.

On Fri, April 10, 2020 5:05 am, Dana Whitlow wrote:
> Question about definition of jitter:   Is it the variation in
> pulse-to-pulse spacing, or is it
> the variation in pulse positions with respect to a jitter-free waveform?

See the document linked above, there are various distinctions made to what
and how you measure the period based on how the clock is being used or
what particular behavior you care about.

-- 
Chris Caudle




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OCXO and fluctuations after EFC adjustment

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 4/10/2020 12:51 PM, ed breya wrote:

looking for. Also, moving the frequency far away from "ideal" changes 
the tempco, since it's no longer at the ideal center of the turnover 
point. In reality, this may not matter much, since after all these 
years, things may have drifted and aged way out of ideal-ness anyway.


SC cut crystals:

1.  Do not necessarily have a turnover
2.  Individual oven set points are not precisely at the
turnover if any.
3.  The crystals without a turnover, instead have a broad
range over which their tempco is extremely small

FWIW, the E1938A oscillators were manufactured using
a procedure whereby the oven set points were individually
set for each oscillator to be exactly on the turnover.
IIRC, the crystal blanks were tweaked slightly to assure
that all E1983A crystals had turnovers.  BTW, we used the
UPPER turnover on the E1938A, as opposed to the lower
turnover on the 10811.



The EFC bias (varactor leakage) current changes too, which interacts 
with the external driving voltage source impedance. For lowest noise and 
loading effects, keep the EFC driving resistance as low as possible.


It is easy to see from the 10811 schematic that the cathode of the EFC
varactor is connected to an avalanche/Zener diode of the temperature
compensated type with a conventional diode in series to do the
compensation.  The voltage of the diode (which is something like
6.2V is a "magic" voltage where the tempco goes to zero).  According
to the 10811 designers, this particular model of diode is particularly
well behaved in terms of noise due to the process by which it was made,
at least 40 years ago.

If you want to do anything serious with EFC, you probably need to bring
out both ends of the diode, etc.

At this time, I will give my usual speech about IMHO the fact that
since the invention of the DDS on a chip, EFC should no longer be used 
for high performance oscillators.


Rick N6RK

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OCXO and fluctuations after EFC adjustment

[ed breya]

This sort of behavior shouldn't be surprising at all. When you change 
the EFC (especially by a fairly large amount to move it a few Hz), you 
change the (transient and steady-state) operating points of the 
circuitry, so it has to drift gradually to stabilize at the new 
conditions. The effects may be tiny, but so are the differences you're 
looking for. Also, moving the frequency far away from "ideal" changes 
the tempco, since it's no longer at the ideal center of the turnover 
point. In reality, this may not matter much, since after all these 
years, things may have drifted and aged way out of ideal-ness anyway.


The EFC bias (varactor leakage) current changes too, which interacts 
with the external driving voltage source impedance. For lowest noise and 
loading effects, keep the EFC driving resistance as low as possible.


Ed

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] OCXO and fluctuations after EFC adjustment

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

EFC changes by themselves are pretty much instantaneous. If you are seeing
post tune drift, it likely is from the pot or from things like a temperature 
change
(or draft) when you go near the part. 

If your grounds are a bit intertwined, the change in oven current will give you
a delta voltage on the ground. That can get into the EFC. Taking care of this 
is harder than it seems. The 10811 has an independent ground return for the 
oven, so it at least is *possible* to do in this case.

A good starting point is to hook up a DVM on your pot. Watch the voltage after
you do a tune adjustment. If the drift you are after is in the parts in 10^-12 
range,
that may take a pretty good DVM. 

Tuning adjustments to the coarse tune on the 10811 (or any similar OCXO) are
a different beast. The trimmer cap is heated inside the oven and you will cool
it off a bit doing an adjustment. You can see a bit of post tune drift as a 
result. 

Bob

> On Apr 10, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Taka Kamiya via time-nuts 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have a few HP10811 and was thinking of making an interesting setup:  A 
> setup where frequency is purposely offset by user defined amount by few Hz, 
> and make it selectable.
> 
> Under normal setup, I would use a potentiometer and EFC control the 
> frequency.  When I adjust EFC, the frequency immediately moves but then 
> drifts.  It takes an hour or so to settle down again, then I have to 
> readjust.  Due to precision of my testing setup, I am unable to quantify 
> this.  
> 
> Is this a nature of OCXO in general or is this unique to HP10811?
> 
> --- 
> (Mr.) Taka Kamiya
> KB4EMF / ex JF2DKG
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to 
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] OCXO and fluctuations after EFC adjustment

[Taka Kamiya via time-nuts]

I have a few HP10811 and was thinking of making an interesting setup:  A setup 
where frequency is purposely offset by user defined amount by few Hz, and make 
it selectable.

Under normal setup, I would use a potentiometer and EFC control the frequency.  
When I adjust EFC, the frequency immediately moves but then drifts.  It takes 
an hour or so to settle down again, then I have to readjust.  Due to precision 
of my testing setup, I am unable to quantify this.  

Is this a nature of OCXO in general or is this unique to HP10811?

--- 
(Mr.) Taka Kamiya
KB4EMF / ex JF2DKG
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

Back quite a while ago, I went back and visited my buddies / ex-coworkers  
at Motorola Franklin Park ( = the Motorola crystal / oscillator group). Based 
on 
my past experience with the yields on a “quartz bar to oscillator” fab process, 
 
I asked:

How do you build a “6 sigma” oscillator? …..

The answer:

You divide the process up into about 6,000 independent “points of failure”. You
then postulate that those failures can only be “detected” at the final test end 
of things.

I’m not suggesting that is a *wrong* answer, only that it was a somewhat 
surprising
approach to solving the “problem”. 

Bob

> On Apr 10, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/10/2020 5:47 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>> Hi
>> It is not at all uncommon to …. errr …. make that decision, regardless
>> of what the customer might think about it :)
>> Even with that sort of decision, the whole process of measuring a one
>> sigma and multiplying by 6 depends very much on the underlying
>> processes (noise or maybe something else ….) being well behaved /
>> Gaussian sort of things. One can at least on paper construct situations
>> that do not meat that “well behaved” constraint …..
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
> 
> 
> A few decades ago, Motorola had a "six sigma" program
> which made everyone think they were a statistician just
> because they knew that buzzword.
> 
> Rick N6RK


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 4/10/2020 5:47 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:

Hi

It is not at all uncommon to …. errr …. make that decision, regardless
of what the customer might think about it :)

Even with that sort of decision, the whole process of measuring a one
sigma and multiplying by 6 depends very much on the underlying
processes (noise or maybe something else ….) being well behaved /
Gaussian sort of things. One can at least on paper construct situations
that do not meat that “well behaved” constraint …..

Bob





A few decades ago, Motorola had a "six sigma" program
which made everyone think they were a statistician just
because they knew that buzzword.

Rick N6RK

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

It is not at all uncommon to …. errr …. make that decision, regardless
of what the customer might think about it :)

Even with that sort of decision, the whole process of measuring a one
sigma and multiplying by 6 depends very much on the underlying 
processes (noise or maybe something else ….) being well behaved /
Gaussian sort of things. One can at least on paper construct situations
that do not meat that “well behaved” constraint …..

Lots and lots of issues. 

If you turn back the clock, this whole thing is very similar to the 1960’s
frequency stability measurement fun and games. That’s what ultimately
gave us ADEV. 

Bob

> On Apr 10, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
> 
> I once got into that "p-p" business and it was like pulling teeth to get
> the customer
> even semi-reasonable.  He finally agreed to stipulate that the p-p value
> could be
> construed as 6 X the rms value.
> 
> Dana
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:57 AM Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Which of the multitude of definitions are we talking about?
>> 
>> One very common definition looks at peak to peak jitter and does
>> not care about the center. Another looks at +/- peak to edge and
>> then uses the greater of the two numbers. Other definitions look
>> at RMS jitter and generally don’t care about the edge.
>> 
>> At least to me, the biggest problem is that any time “peak” or “peak
>> to peak” comes in to a calculation that involves random noise,
>> things go sideways fast. People pretty much never want to
>> define a confidence level (how any sigma?). They want an
>> absolute number.
>> 
>> Lots of fun
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> On Apr 10, 2020, at 6:05 AM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Question about definition of jitter:   Is it the variation in
>>> pulse-to-pulse spacing, or is it
>>> the variation in pulse positions with respect to a jitter-free waveform?
>>> 
>>> Dana
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:21 PM Hal Murray 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 
 rich...@karlquist.com said:
> There is always an implied clock recovery loop that the the jitter is
> measured against. The loop may itself affect the jitter measurement
 either by
> cleaning up jitter or contributing to it.
 
 Interesting.  I hadn't thought about it that way.
 
 Suppose I measure the edge to edge times and make a histogram.  Can I
>> get
 jitter out of that?  Where is the clock recovery loop?
 
 --
 These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
 
 
 
 
 ___
 time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
 To unsubscribe, go to
 http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
 and follow the instructions there.
 
>>> ___
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to 
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Dana Whitlow]

I once got into that "p-p" business and it was like pulling teeth to get
the customer
even semi-reasonable.  He finally agreed to stipulate that the p-p value
could be
construed as 6 X the rms value.

Dana


On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:57 AM Bob kb8tq  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Which of the multitude of definitions are we talking about?
>
> One very common definition looks at peak to peak jitter and does
> not care about the center. Another looks at +/- peak to edge and
> then uses the greater of the two numbers. Other definitions look
> at RMS jitter and generally don’t care about the edge.
>
> At least to me, the biggest problem is that any time “peak” or “peak
> to peak” comes in to a calculation that involves random noise,
> things go sideways fast. People pretty much never want to
> define a confidence level (how any sigma?). They want an
> absolute number.
>
> Lots of fun
>
> Bob
>
> > On Apr 10, 2020, at 6:05 AM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
> >
> > Question about definition of jitter:   Is it the variation in
> > pulse-to-pulse spacing, or is it
> > the variation in pulse positions with respect to a jitter-free waveform?
> >
> > Dana
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:21 PM Hal Murray 
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> rich...@karlquist.com said:
> >>> There is always an implied clock recovery loop that the the jitter is
> >>> measured against. The loop may itself affect the jitter measurement
> >> either by
> >>> cleaning up jitter or contributing to it.
> >>
> >> Interesting.  I hadn't thought about it that way.
> >>
> >> Suppose I measure the edge to edge times and make a histogram.  Can I
> get
> >> jitter out of that?  Where is the clock recovery loop?
> >>
> >> --
> >> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> >> To unsubscribe, go to
> >> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> >> and follow the instructions there.
> >>
> > ___
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> > and follow the instructions there.
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

Which of the multitude of definitions are we talking about? 

One very common definition looks at peak to peak jitter and does
not care about the center. Another looks at +/- peak to edge and 
then uses the greater of the two numbers. Other definitions look
at RMS jitter and generally don’t care about the edge. 

At least to me, the biggest problem is that any time “peak” or “peak 
to peak” comes in to a calculation that involves random noise, 
things go sideways fast. People pretty much never want to 
define a confidence level (how any sigma?). They want an 
absolute number. 

Lots of fun

Bob

> On Apr 10, 2020, at 6:05 AM, Dana Whitlow  wrote:
> 
> Question about definition of jitter:   Is it the variation in
> pulse-to-pulse spacing, or is it
> the variation in pulse positions with respect to a jitter-free waveform?
> 
> Dana
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:21 PM Hal Murray  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> rich...@karlquist.com said:
>>> There is always an implied clock recovery loop that the the jitter is
>>> measured against. The loop may itself affect the jitter measurement
>> either by
>>> cleaning up jitter or contributing to it.
>> 
>> Interesting.  I hadn't thought about it that way.
>> 
>> Suppose I measure the edge to edge times and make a histogram.  Can I get
>> jitter out of that?  Where is the clock recovery loop?
>> 
>> --
>> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to 
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[David C. Partridge]

IIRC the latter

-Original Message-
From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@lists.febo.com] On Behalf Of Dana
Whitlow
Sent: 10 April 2020 11:06
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

Question about definition of jitter:   Is it the variation in
pulse-to-pulse spacing, or is it
the variation in pulse positions with respect to a jitter-free waveform?

Dana


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Phase noise confusion II

[Dana Whitlow]

Question about definition of jitter:   Is it the variation in
pulse-to-pulse spacing, or is it
the variation in pulse positions with respect to a jitter-free waveform?

Dana


On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:21 PM Hal Murray  wrote:

>
> rich...@karlquist.com said:
> > There is always an implied clock recovery loop that the the jitter is
> > measured against. The loop may itself affect the jitter measurement
> either by
> > cleaning up jitter or contributing to it.
>
> Interesting.  I hadn't thought about it that way.
>
> Suppose I measure the edge to edge times and make a histogram.  Can I get
> jitter out of that?  Where is the clock recovery loop?
>
> --
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.