> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Spec An for phase noise measurements
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2008 4:26 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you using a noise marker that yields dBc/Hz values? The FFT window
> > function has its own required noise-response correction
Are you using a noise marker that yields dBc/Hz values? The FFT window
function has its own required noise-response correction value, so if you're
just looking at a marker and doing the log10(RBW) subtraction yourself, that
could account for the difference.
Also, if there is a noise marker, check
> I decided to get a new spectrum analyzer rather than an 11729 at this
> time. I bought an Advantest R3267 to replace the HP 8596E. It seems
> to have phase noise performance in the same neighborhood as the
> 8560-series, for about half the price. In case I ever need anything
> better, I can ge
> It is quite surprising that the 859xE series is spec'd about
> 10-15 db worse on phase noise than the comparable 856xE instruments. I
> wonder if this difference exists in the performance
Yes, and I just documented it. See my earlier post with the .GIF
attachment.
> or just marketing
Doubling your clock frequency adds 6 dBc/Hz to whatever the noise level was
at the input, at all offsets within the doubler's bandwidth. Only if the
input noise level is near or below the multiplier's own residual noise floor
will the increase be worse than 6 dBc/Hz.
That will not happen when ord
> But would I be too simple minded to suggest that maybe some form
> of A/D PC/workstation input device with high dynamic range and decent
> sample rate (certainly available in high end audio stuff to 192 KHz)
> would be the logical vehicle for close in measurement in a quadrature
> locked P
> 3562's or 3563's are not expensive.
Yep... I went over to a local fellow's house the other day to buy a 3561A he
had for sale, and he talked me into taking his 3562A as well. Both were
cheap to acquire, and they're both good analyzers, but neither of them are
interesting by current performance
> > Take an hour and look through this HP app note (large file, but
> only about
> > 50 pages):
> > http://www.thegleam.com/ke5fx/gpib/5952-8286E.pdf
> >
> > It is not all that specific to the 11729B/C despite making frequent
> > references to it.
>
> Makes sense now. One problem -- the 8596E onl
> > As a more-concrete answer to your question, since you mentioned
> a need for
> > coverage into the 6-GHz region, an 11729B/C and 8662A would
> actually be a
> > good choice. Together they'll still be much cheaper than the 8561E I'd
> > recommend otherwise. Figure $2500 at most for the 8662A
> John,
>
> I'm a little confused as to what you are suggesting. An 8662A is
> about $1500, and the 11729C is about $3k. What would I get for $25?
The parts needed to implement Wenzel's app note:
http://www.wenzel.com/documents/measuringphasenoise.htm
> I don't know exactly what is involved wi
> Still, you should keep what you already have, and add a quadrature PLL and
> LNA to it.
As a more-concrete answer to your question, since you mentioned a need for
coverage into the 6-GHz region, an 11729B/C and 8662A would actually be a
good choice. Together they'll still be much cheaper than
> I am considering getting a new spectrum analyzer so I can make better
> phase noise measurements than with my 8596E. I've looked at the 8566B
> and the 8562 and 8563 since I need coverage to at least 6 GHz. The
> 8566 is huge and ancient, though, so I think I'm leaning away from
> that one. An
> Yeah, that was totally it:
> http://www.thegleam.com/ke5fx/spur_demo.gif
>
> The spur amplitude accuracy is at its best in the red trace, just
> before the LNA starts to distort.
>
Correction, yellow is closer to the SA reference plot; I forgot to load the
latest plot at first.
-- john, KE5FX
Yeah, that was totally it:
http://www.thegleam.com/ke5fx/spur_demo.gif
The spur amplitude accuracy is at its best in the red trace, just before the
LNA starts to distort.
Martyn: see if the amplitude of the spur you inject has any effect on the
apparent inaccuracy of the 3048A. LNA misbehavior c
of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] PM-to-AM noise conversion
>
>
> John Miles wrote:
> > Ah... that could very well be the case. The second lobe is so
> weak relative
> > to the first, that it's very easy to believe that harm
Ah... that could very well be the case. The second lobe is so weak relative
to the first, that it's very easy to believe that harmonics generated in the
LNA were stronger. I'll bear that in mind when re-checking the measurement.
Sounds like another win for Occam.
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original
> > Really scratching my head now. I understand why the SSB filter makes a
> > difference, because the mirror image of the FM spur is
> coherent. I don't
> > understand why the 11729C's view of this DSB measurement (11.5
> MHz, 30 kHz,
> > first lobe) is closer to 'correct', while the earlier on
07731
> 732-886-5960
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Miles
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:27 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nu
time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] PM-to-AM noise conversion (was RE: New Question
> onHP3048A Phase Noise Test Set)
>
> John Miles wrote:
> > I see what you mean, Bruce, but why are the two sidebands considered
> > incoherent, just because they're
> The phase angle between the USB and LSB noise components is random when
> translated to baseband so when averaged over time the resultant
> amplitude is the same as if one just added the powers of the 2 components.
> When the 2 sidebands are coherent the phase shift between them is fixed
> so tha
I see what you mean, Bruce, but why are the two sidebands considered
incoherent, just because they're noise? Since the IF is 0 Hz, the other
sideband appearing at the analyzer input jack is a folded image of the same
noise spectrum, right? Given that, shouldn't the SSB correction be -6 dB
rather
tter which spectrum analyzer (3561A versus
3585A) you use to verify the spur amplitude?
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of John Miles
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:54 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time
> I confirm the spur level on the spectrum analyzer. However the
> 3048A always
> says the spur is 6 dB lower than it actually is (6 dB plus/minus 0.5 dB).
>
> Can anyone tell me why this is so.
>
> I wondered if it had something to do with phase noise and amplitude noise
> not being the same thi
ise time and frequency measurement
> > Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Slightly OT: inexpensiveUSB
> > analog-digitalconverter?
> >
> >
> > John Miles wrote:
> > > Is it just me, or is there a huge hole in the DAQ marketplace for a
> > > high-resolution, low-noise, low
Is it just me, or is there a huge hole in the DAQ marketplace for a
high-resolution, low-noise, low-to-moderate cost, _medium_-speed acquisition
dongle?
I've been planning to build a 100+ dB 24-bit USB DAQ interface around the
AD7760 for some time now, which would be good from DC-1 MHz. That woul
Yes, I don't think a broken oven controller is going to pull the frequency
off by 890 kHz. :-)
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Tim Shoppa
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:13 PM
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: Re: [
> I also recently acquired a 11848A interface and have written a small
> program to control the 11848A (and also the 35601A) over the HPIB
> bus which
> allows the various signal paths and filters to be manipulated
> using a PC. My
> eventual goal, largely inspired by John
> how _exactly_ are you turning the dBc/Hz
> values you
> >get from (say) the 8561E into your ~-120 dBc/Hz numbers? Let's hear the
> >step-by-step procedure on that, and the problem should reveal itself.
> Hi John,
>
> by selecting a 1Hz RBW on the 8561E.
And subtracting (LNA gain + 6 dB - abo
So, I guess the main question is, in the absence of something like the
85671A package or mine, how _exactly_ are you turning the dBc/Hz values you
get from (say) the 8561E into your ~-120 dBc/Hz numbers? Let's hear the
step-by-step procedure on that, and the problem should reveal itself.
One good
> John Miles wrote:
> >
> >I have a 35601A, although I've never done anything with it.
> >
> Did you happen to spot any service/calibration manuals
> for the 35601A? I haven't found anything online yet, but one
> of the manual dealers I checked lists a har
While that makes sense as an optimization step, I think it's important not
to send him on an endless hunt for a few extra dBc/Hz' worth of accuracy
when he's missing 30 or 40. He can get to -160 dBc/Hz with only the
1980s-era guidelines in the HP and Wenzel app note, which are relatively
simple (i
> Thats why its phase noise floor is relatively high.
> Saturating both mixer ports and using a capacitive IF port termination
> should achieve a lower phase noise floor.
> The tradeoff is that careful calibration of the mixer phase sensitivity
> frequency response needs to be done.
That's a good
> I am trying the setup using an E1938A DUT. The noise floor out of
> the Mixer
> is about -120dBc/Hz, way too high. Tried other sources with known noise
> floors of about -160dBc/Hz as well, similar results.
That sounds like a system-level error; you're accounting properly for the
LNA gain, rig
> Hi guys,
>
> does anyone have any experience with "home-brew" quadrature-PLL PN
> measurements? Renting/buying a E5052A or TSC5120A does get to be
> expensive..
Yes, quite a bit. When you don't use its microwave downconverter or other
extended capabilities, the 11729B/C is just an implementat
Following up an earlier post:
> It appears that the 11729's 640-MHz PA can drive the 7123
> adequately, although the 12.16 GHz comb line is somewhat close to
> the spec limit of -20 dBm. The 7113-110 is a better replacement
> for the 33004A in the 11729C, since it would actually be
> operating in
I have a 35601A, although I've never done anything with it. It seems to be
very much hardwired to work in a 3047A system, with the particular analyzer
model(s) and software controller that entails. The 11848A is nicer but
still designed to work within a very specific system configuration.
My cur
Tom and I spent some time over at his place a couple of days ago, looking at
a pair of regenerative dividers on his phase-noise analyzer. Exciting
details here:
http://www.ke5fx.com/regen.htm
As the page says, I really appreciate the help from Bruce, Enrico, and
Magnus on these. There is still
There isnt any; that's not a correct assertion for crystal oscillators in
the general case.
The math associated with multiplying or dividing a frequency is pretty
straightforward. If an input edge is N picoseconds late due to jitter, the
corresponding output edge is also going to be N picoseconds
> My 2 cents
>
> At what freq offset are the measurments being made?
> (NLTL vs. SRD)
>
> Is it that the SRD has more flicker noise and thus
> is worse than 20log(n) for close-in noise? Or does
> the SRD have a wideband noise floor that is worse
> than 20log(n)?
Their MWJ reprint talks about
It's hard to read the tea leaves on that. Dieter Scherer has one note
(Generation of Low PN Microwave Signals) that shows the 33004A multiplier's
output noise at -140 dBc/Hz to -148 dBc/Hz from 1 to 10 kHz, at 5.5 GHz
(N=11). If that is the case with the 11729's multiplier, then the NLTL part
is
> I have a nice 3585B, 11729C (with all filters) and a nice working 8662A. I
> assume the PN of the 640 output of the 8662A is still more than adequate.
Right; it doesn't make sense to swap out the 11729's SRD multiplier unless
you are also upgrading the 640-MHz drive source at the same time.
The
FYI, I don't know how many others on the list are interested in microwave PN
measurement with gear like the HP 11729B/C or 70420/E5500 series, but I'm in
the (slow) process of upgrading my own 11729C setup to lower its measurement
floor and thought I'd mention something I learned the other day in c
> I color match quite a bit. I refurbish lab instruments. I have a piece
> of glass over top of my scanner platten. I mix the paint right on the
> scanner and evaluate it with the GIMP.
Now that is a clever idea...! Filed for future use.
-- john, KE5FX
_
> Yeah, not without a much-better OCXO than that.
>
... er, TCXO.
-- john, KE5FX
___
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.
... er, *V*CXO.
/outta coffee
> -Original Message-
> From: John Miles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:26 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: RE: [time-nuts] Locking 100 MHz to 10 MHz
>
>
> &g
> That is good information. My other fear is that the user's 10 MHz
> will pick up some 60 Hz on the way to my system, but I suppose there
> is no way I want to be narrower than 60 Hz on my loop bandwidth.
>
Yeah, not without a much-better OCXO than that.
Of course, if your other system constra
> A good spectrum analyzer (such as HP 8560B/E etc with the phase-noise
> software option) should allow you to measure <-68dBc/Hz noise at
> 100Hz offset at
> 100MHz, so you can check what BW results in the overall lowest noise.
True, the specs on that 100 MHz VCXO are not what you'd call high-e
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it WAS nonsense and rubbish.
The assertion in question had no basis in reality. I was pretty darned sure
about that, because I had just made the same bad assumption at my own
workbench.
In my case I had assumed that the Jim Williams-certified Low Noise
> Congratulations, you've been seduced by the quoted noise without
> considering what it actually means.
> This is just the sort of reaction the marketers hope to induce.
> This is a natural reaction, you should be more skeptical of first
> impressions.
Exactly. It appears that the XC6204 is on
> Can you explain to me the use of fast recovery diodes if you are going
> to put capacitors across them?
I can see using fast-recovery diodes if you want to rectify the output of a
switching supply, to limit the losses. Ordinary 1N400x diodes start to run
very hot above a few kHz. In a switche
13, 2007 6:49 PM
> To: Matt Ettus; John Miles
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Super Regulator links
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Matt Ettus wrote:
>
> > He has "ultra high performance rectifier bridges". Sounds like
> snake oil to me.
> >
> > Mat
Bruce can post all the porn links he wants. I'm already going to have to
install a new hard drive to archive all the useful schematics and design
notes he's been contributing! Might as well fill up the remaining space
with SOMETHING.
In case the message isn't clear enough, I really appreciate th
It's a nice read, by the way. Has very little to do quartz oscillators
specifically, despite its title.
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of John Miles
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:40 AM
> To: D
I just uploaded the .PDF version to Didier's FTP site. Until he moves it to
the appropriate subdirectory, it can be accessed as follows:
ftp.ko4bb.com
user: manuals
password: manuals
filename: John_Vig_Quartz_Crystal_Oscillator_Tutorial.pdf
Size is about 2.3 MB.
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original
I don't think much of the idea of shotgun-replacing these particular caps.
There are a great many of them, they're not *that* unreliable, and unlike
the notorious radial-lead tantalums, they tend to fail open, not shorted, so
they're unlikely to damage other parts when they fail.
On the other hand
Never fear. I have seen this a few times, in a couple of 8566Bs that I have
owned as well as in some others. The YTO UNLOCK error always seems to come
down to an open electrolytic on the YTO driver or pretune DAC boards, under
the hinged plastic cover toward the rear of the RF section.
Check pow
It's very complicated. Without getting into the details of I2C EEPROMs and
stuff like that, the KNJN boards work by using the 8051 controller in the
FX2 USB chip to implement both the programming protocol and the
communications protocol. They have simple example applications in C that
run on the
Right; 'program' was a poor choice of words. My concern was more about how
to get data off the board. I know it's customary to use a separate JTAG
connection for programming, but if you can do both through the USB port, it
seems like an obvious way to go.
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> I don't know about for Xilinx, but for Altera, a Byteblaster cable is
> pretty easy to make. Low cost varieties exist on eBay too. In fact we
> use a USB Blaster clone in the lab here from http://www.minford.ca
> which is a lot cheaper than the Altera version. Currently I seem to
> be engaged pre
The lack of an FX2 or similar USB chip on the Darnaw board makes me wonder
how you're supposed to program it. These are nice alternatives if you don't
need a full 'starter kit' board like the ones from Digilent:
http://www.knjn.com
The same guy who sells these boards also hosts a good FPGA-speci
It sounds obvious, but make sure the board is pressed all the way onto the
connector. The housing makes it a little bit difficult to tell if the GPIB
connection is properly seated. This has tripped me up before.
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAI
> > I need to clarify that I've helped Abdul with some testing now
> and again,
> > but have absolutely no other business relationship with him,
> other than the
> > fact that I happen to live in the same area, and regularly let him (and
> > pretty much anyone else who asks) drop by to use my test
> Hi John,
>
> I agree in part.
>
> If it is known that certain GPIB instruments are not supportable,
> then it is essential to have that documented fact easily available to
> the buyer. Thus far, the Prologix website, and documentation, make no
> mention of any possible limitations, or deficienci
Interesting point there. I seem to recall quite a few pullup/pulldown
options in the Atmel port-configuration registers; this may just be a matter
of selecting a mode that looks more like the resistor configuration Chuck
mentioned.
Personally, I think it's fine if you support only 99% of the GPIB
Did you try sending ++auto 0 before powering up the 3478A?
This setting is persistent, so you should only have to do it once to keep
the board from automatically addressing the 3478A to talk.
Also try disconnecting any/all other RS-232 devices from your PC during
initial testing, and/or try a dif
It depends on whether both receivers are set to display GPS or UTC time, I
imagine. TBoltMon.exe reports that the current difference is 14 seconds.
On my particular Datum, I can switch back and forth by hitting MENU twice
and selecting option 8. It agrees with the Thunderbolt if I select GPS
tim
Yep, if you go to Settings->General->Date & Time and turn the "Set
Automatically" control off.
-- john, KE5FX
> > nothing to do but sit there and mark time. My current phone is
> an iPhone on
> > the AT&T GSM/EDGE network, and it seems to lag about 7 seconds
> behind UTC as
> > reported by the D
I doubt it's possible to make any general statements about the accuracy of
the time display on a phone. It updates whenever the firmware gets the
proverbial round-tuit time slice.
My old phone, a Motorola flip-phone variant of some kind, was always dead-on
versus the Thunderbolt on Qwest's Seattl
> > Yours is actually better than spec... my Efratom FRS-C manual says the
> > spec is -70 at 1 Hz offset, -110 at 100 Hz, -130 at 1 kHz. The notation
> > is a bit odd though -- it says "dBc/sqrt(Hz)".
>
> You're looking at the Thunderbolt trace, I'm guessing... I'm only
> getting -117 dBc/Hz at
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Miles
> Sent: 18 November 2007 20:06
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] DATUM GPS Thingies...
>
> 9390-56110, for this one.
>
> -- john, KE5FX
>
> >
t: Re: [time-nuts] DATUM GPS Thingies...
>
>
> John,
>
> What's the model number?
>
> Rob Kimberley
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Miles
> Sent: 18 November 2007 19:14
> To: Discus
That's good to know. Are there any manuals/schematics or other documents
available for these?
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Burt I. Weiner
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:11 AM
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject:
> Yours is actually better than spec... my Efratom FRS-C manual says the
> spec is -70 at 1 Hz offset, -110 at 100 Hz, -130 at 1 kHz. The notation
> is a bit odd though -- it says "dBc/sqrt(Hz)".
You're looking at the Thunderbolt trace, I'm guessing... I'm only
getting -117 dBc/Hz at 1 kHz out
Well, I bought the other Datum 9390 that was for sale at the time Mike
posted this message (eBay 260177272556), and it's certainly an impressive
box of stuff for $150. There is an Efratom Rb module, a couple of power
supplies, and a bunch of cards with a wirewrapped(!) back plane.
I hooked up an
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
There was an interesting homebrew proton-precession magnetometer in Circuit
Cellar magazine a few months back. Not very exotic compared to Cs and Rb
tech, but somewhat more accessible to experimenters. You fill two 16-ounce
pl
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
I've heard this recommendation before, but I'll admit I'm not sure I
understand it. My 5370B has no problem reading frequencies out to 1E-10 at
1-second gate times. 10 digits/second, just like the 53131A. Sure, the two
LSDs (
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Fantastic work on that page as usual, Tom. Your documentation really sets
the curve (no pun intended) for the rest of us amateur-metrologist types. :)
I've been toying with the idea of disciplining a 10811 with the output of m
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Thanks to a lot of help and feedback from Ron, K8AQC and Grant, G8UBN, my
GPIB Toolkit package now supports the HP 3585A/B spectrum analyzers. Quite
a few people have asked about these models, so it'll be good to get this
relea
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
In the US, I'm not sure it's always legal for you to void the overall
warranty on an item due to unrelated changes made by the customer. Could be
a good idea to check with an attorney before enforcing those terms.
-- john, KE5
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> > The Achilles' heel of this technique is the statistical temperature
> > fluctuations experienced by individual resistors.
> > ...
Seems debatable whether it's worth worrying about details like this when the
EFC signal is ju
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
I bought 5 of those OCXOs as well, and the seller included some sort of
factory test/burn-in assembly for them. A nice-looking board, actually,
with status LEDs and quite a few small SMT parts associated with each
socket. Has
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> The opposite effect is sometimes desirable to force a browser to display
> an image (usually a JPEG) to display on whatever resolution screen is in
> use.
> Any suggestions?
Firefox does a pretty reasonable job at that. Whe
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> The required depth depends on the soil diffusivity and the temperature
> stability required.
> It is instructive to install thermometers at depth intervals of a foot
> or so and record the temperature fluctuations experienced
rrors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
>
> John,
>
> you are saying that the first device detected by the dll is always named
> "GPIB0"? That would make life easy.
>
> 73s and my best regards
> Ulrich
>
> > -Ursprungliche Nachricht-
> > Von: [EMAIL P
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Hi, Dave --
That doesn't sound entirely comparable to this one, unfortunately. I do
have a partial clue: the seller left about a centimeter of wire on each of
the 6 terminals. They are:
1 Gray
2 Pink/black
3 Bright red
4
Does anyone have access to the schematics for a Gigatronics 1026 signal
generator (50 MHz - 26.5 GHz)? If so, any chance you could look up the 10
MHz OCXO's pinout for me? I just picked up the OCXO from someone parting
out a 1026, but have no other information on it, and I'm guessing the only
hop
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Hi, Ulrich --
I only support the GPIB0 device name in my package, so it's easy enough in
my case to do an ibfind("GPIB0"). If that returns >= 0 (and the ERR flag is
not set in the returned value), then I do an ibonl(GPIB0,0) t
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> At drive levels below saturation, the loss of a mixer depends on the LO
> signal level.
> Consequently the feedback loop gain of a regenerative divider depends on
> the input signal level.
> Hence one would expect there to be
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> Am I missing something here?
>
> I always thought mixers were non linear by definition, and
> relying on that
> non linearity to function:-)
Sure, a mixer is nonlinear with respect to the multiplicative function it
applies to
-nuts] Basic regenerative-divider questions
>
>
> ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
> Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
>
> John Miles wrote:
> >> Did you experience the start of oscillation also as you went from
> >> +3 dBm to
> >> +4 dBm? The impulse ma
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> Did you experience the start of oscillation also as you went from
> +3 dBm to
> +4 dBm? The impulse may be part of getting the oscillation running.
No; nothing happens until the +4.8 dBm to +4.9 dBm transition. There is no
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> What's the crystal for?
> Crystal filters aren't usually necessary
The nature of the filter(s) is one of the questions that I'm hoping those
papers will help answer. I was guessing that a crystal filter would make
the divid
> You can do better than that, a single regenerative divider can be
> configured to divide by 4.
> A pair of parallel feedback paths (with amplifiers), one tuned to F/4
> and the other to 3F/4 are best.
> NIST did some work (together with Indian collaborators) on this type of
> generalised regener
Submitted for general discussion: I have a need to divide a low-noise 80-MHz
clock by two, twice, to obtain 40 MHz and 20 MHz outputs, and my current
thinking is that the quietest way to do this is with a pair of cascaded
regenerative dividers. Does anyone have any 'favorite' papers or
application
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> When making automated mixer spur measurements using the HP 8566 spectrum
> analyzer and HP 8350B sweep generators, both under HP-IB control
> the phase
> noise of the 8350B was so bad you could not make a measurement.
> With t
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
This seminar was given June 14, 1985 at Red Bank, NJ. Its handout covered
pretty much every bit of information and lore HP had to impart on
phase-noise measurement. Anyone interested in PN measurement with 80s-era
hardware (85
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
There should certainly no problem using COM3 with Win98SE. If you aren't
using your machine's normal serial ports for anything, you might try
disabling them in the CMOS setup screen. That may let the system assign the
Prologix
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Hi, Mike --
If Didier can't handle that, I can run it through the scanner here. The
binding will be cut off, and you would get it back with a coil or comb
binding from Kinko's. A 1" thick book takes about one minute to scan t
rendering of one of the diagrams, although I never did catch what program he
used to generate it. It looked quite a bit better than the 7470.EXE output,
at any rate. If we can get a set of better renderings, I'll make sure they
find their way to Brooke.
-- john, KE5FX
>
> Hi:
>
&g
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Also looks like the link to the third paper of Rick's is broken.
-- john, KE5FX
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of WB6BNQ
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:13 PM
> To:
801 - 900 of 1088 matches
Mail list logo
