brimda...@aol.com wrote:
> Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>
>> That is a very effective way of elevating the phase noise floor.
>> Its usually far better to amplify the input and then split the output
>> maintaining a gain to the splitter outputs of at least 0dB.
>>
>>
> As I already explained the
Joe
Joe Gwinn wrote:
> This is from home. I'll not be at work until next year.
>
> At 11:48 PM + 12/18/08, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:17:33 +1300
>> From: Bruce Griffiths
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger
>> To: Dis
Joe
Joe Gwinn wrote:
> At 11:48 PM + 12/18/08, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:48:27 +1300
>> From: Bruce Griffiths
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger
>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>>
>
Didier wrote:
>
>Your original post asked for a reference distribution amplifier.
>
I did not ask _for_ a reference distribution amplifier.
I asked whether anyone had used the MAX2470/2471 in such a
design, specifically in regards to its residual phase noise.
>
> "Just wondering if anyone ha
Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>
>That is a very effective way of elevating the phase noise floor.
>Its usually far better to amplify the input and then split the output
>maintaining a gain to the splitter outputs of at least 0dB.
>
As I already explained the last time you mentioned this,
I am well aware
At 11:48 PM + 12/18/08, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:48:27 +1300
>From: Bruce Griffiths
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>
>Message-ID: <494ae14b.2050...@xtra.co
This is from home. I'll not be at work until next year.
At 11:48 PM + 12/18/08, time-nuts-requ...@febo.com wrote:
>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:17:33 +1300
>From: Bruce Griffiths
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency mea
Joe
Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
> Bruce,
>
>
> time-nuts-boun...@febo.com wrote on 12/17/2008 06:26:00 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>>
[BG] It isn't necessary to use a pair of mixers and an offset source
> to
>
characterise the sound card, driving both sound card inputs fr
Joe
Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> time-nuts-boun...@febo.com wrote on 12/17/2008 03:43:16 PM:
>
>
>> Joe
>>
>> Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>>
>>> time-nuts-boun...@febo.com wrote on 12/16/2008 10:21:55 PM:
>>>
>>>
> [snip]
>
[BG] Obtaining suitable mixers f
Bruce,
time-nuts-boun...@febo.com wrote on 12/17/2008 06:26:00 PM:
[snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >> [BG] It isn't necessary to use a pair of mixers and an offset source
to
> >> characterise the sound card, driving both sound card inputs from the
> >> same audio source should suffice.
> >>
> >
> > [JG]
Bruce,
time-nuts-boun...@febo.com wrote on 12/17/2008 03:43:16 PM:
> Joe
>
> Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> >
> > time-nuts-boun...@febo.com wrote on 12/16/2008 10:21:55 PM:
> >
[snip]
> >
> >> [BG] Obtaining suitable mixers for 5MHz and 10MHz input frequencies
or even
> >> 100MHz is
>
> Lux,
>
> It is one more confimation that my assumption is valid.
In fact, they comment about the potential problem of injection locking..
> > > Allan, et al., did a thing with 8 small oscillators in a
> ring. I
> > > don't recall if they deliberately tried to have them mutually
> > > coupl
Lux,
It is one more confimation that my assumption is valid.
Thanks for the link,
Predrag
At 22:14 18.12.2008, you wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Lux, James P
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:04 PM
> > To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
>
Bruce,
these articles are more or less the answer to my question.
In principle, there is obviously reduction in noise, and the main
concerns are uncoupled frequency difference and phase.
Thanks,
Predrag
At 21:48 18.12.2008, you wrote:
>Pedrag
>
>You may want to look at:
>
>h
Bruce,
I know the math, and possible perils. The main question is still:
Does statistics help? Is it going to be better?
If I do try, I'll use a bunch of 13 MHZ TCXO's, because I have only
3 10811, and more than 30 TCXOs.
Also with a higher number of lower quality oscs improvement could
> -Original Message-
> From: Lux, James P
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:04 PM
> To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
> Subject: RE: [time-nuts] Is oscillator sync always bad?
>
>
>
> Allan, et al., did a thing with 8 small oscillators in a
> ring. I don't r
> -Original Message-
> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Predrag Dukic
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:20 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: [time-nuts] Is oscillator sync always bad?
>
>
>
> Hi,
Pedrag
You may want to look at:
http://my.ece.ucsb.edu/yorklab/Publications/BioBib/84%20-%20MTT%20May%201997%20Phase%20Noise.pdf
http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/49985/1/PhysRevLett_98_184101.pdf
to get some idea of the complexities involved in such a scheme if you
in
Predrag Dukic wrote:
> Hi, Time -Nuts,
>
> Did anyone try to deliberately allow syncronisation of two
> oscillators, by , for example paralleling outputs of two 10811.
>
> I expect to see some benefits from the usual statistics: Phase
> noise divided by sqrt of 2and also decreased ampli
Some of Len Cutler's engineers at HP attempted to build
an ensemble of nine 10811 oscillators. It was quite
non-trivial and I'm not sure they ever completed
the project. I doubt whether just letting 10811's
self synchronize would result in satisfactory performance.
Rick Karlquist N6RK
Predrag
Hi, Time -Nuts,
Did anyone try to deliberately allow syncronisation of two
oscillators, by , for example paralleling outputs of two 10811.
I expect to see some benefits from the usual statistics: Phase
noise divided by sqrt of 2and also decreased amplitude random
frequency jumps.
Steve Rooke wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> 2008/12/17 Bruce Griffiths :
>
>> You can easily cobble one together using whatever sound card your PC has
>> together with a mixer and a few inexpensive opamps, filters etc.
>>
>
> I have read all your posts with great interest and have learned a
> great dea
22 matches
Mail list logo
