[time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

I thought that someone was designing a circuit that could be used to compare two oscillators. What happened to that project? I now have a HP 5370A so I have something, but I would like to make simultaneous measurements on three or four "precision" clocks.I am not qualified to design a "state of

[time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Another article (with practical hints) is OPTIMIZATION OF DUAL-MIXER TIME-DIFFERENCE MULTIPLIER L. Sojdr, J. Cermák, R. Barillet The article (pdf file) is at present not online. It is too big for the Time Nuts annex (912k) I can send you the article direct. Best regardsJue

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Bill Janssen wrote: > I thought that someone was designing a circuit that could be used to compare > two oscillators. > > What happened to that project? I now have a HP 5370A so I have > something, but > I would like to make simultaneous measurements on three or four "precision" > clocks.I am not

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Here is a scheme that seems to work well for comparing stable frequency sources in the range of 10 to 100 second measurement intervals. Objective - Measure frequency to +/-2E-12 in less than 1 minute. Method - Heterodyne DUT output to 1KHz with a master reference source + mixer fe

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Pete wrote: > Here is a scheme that seems to work well for comparing stable frequency > sources in the range of 10 to 100 second measurement intervals. > > Objective - Measure frequency to +/-2E-12 in less than 1 minute. > > Method - Heterodyne DUT output to 1KHz with a master reference source + >

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Bruce, This idea is NOT intended to rival the JPL results. Instead, it's intended to be cheap, easy to replicate & allow rather low cost instruments to be used to compare good sources to parts in 1E12, quickly. The 1KHz heterodyne frequency makes life much easier than 1Hz. Noisy components & grou

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Pete wrote: > Bruce, > > This idea is NOT intended to rival the JPL results. Instead, > it's intended to be cheap, easy to replicate & allow rather > low cost instruments to be used to compare good sources > to parts in 1E12, quickly. The 1KHz heterodyne frequency > makes life much easier than 1Hz.

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote: > Pete wrote: > > Here is a scheme that seems to work well for comparing stable frequency > > sources in the range of 10 to 100 second measurement intervals. > > > > Objective - Measure frequency to +/-2E-12 in less than 1 minute. > > > > Method - Heterodyne DUT output to

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

WB6BNQ wrote: > Bruce, > > Can you provide a link to the JPL system you reference above ? > > Thank you, > > BillWB6BNQ > > Bill http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19910016462 There is also, or was, a free to d

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

TED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Pete > Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Juni 2007 03:38 > An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device > > > Here is a scheme that seems to work well for comparing stab

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Ulrich Bangert wrote: > Pete, > > 5. Mini-circuits BLP-1.9 low pass filter. > > terminating the mixer if output with an lowpass/bandpass filter and NOT > with an diplexer is not so good an idea. Where does the rf go? > > Best regards > Ulrich Bangert > > Ulrich This depen

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

From: Dr Bruce Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:37:29 +1200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ulrich Bangert wrote: > > Pete, > > > > > >>&g

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Bruce, A few final thoughts. 1. Thanks for the critical view; it does help. 2. Like many time-nuts I have a reasonably good 10MHz source & sometimes need to check out a newly acquired OXCO to ensure it can muster 1E9 or 1E10 performance (with 10x headroom). An SR620 would be ideal, but it's jus

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Pete wrote: > Bruce, > > A few final thoughts. > > 1. Thanks for the critical view; it does help. > > 2. Like many time-nuts I have a reasonably good 10MHz source & > sometimes need to check out a newly acquired OXCO to ensure > it can muster 1E9 or 1E10 performance (with 10x headroom). > An SR620

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Hi Pete, >3. I read the JPL paper (more than once)... Do you have it available in electronic form (or know a link that I might download it from)? Thanks, Peter Vince (G8ZZR, London) ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

t: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:55 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device > > > Hi Pete, > > >3. I read the JPL paper (more than once)... > > Do you have it available in electronic for

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device > > > I have the JPL zero crossing detector paper scanned in. > (John Dick, et al, 1990 PTTI). It is definitely a must > read. > > Do you want

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of Richard (Rick) Karlquist >> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:37 PM >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device >&

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

of precise time and frequency measurement >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device >> >> >> Hi Pete, >> >>> 3. I read the JPL paper (more than once)... >> Do you have it available in electronic form (or know

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Dear time-nuts, there is another article about zero crossing detection, comes after the very wise article written by my friend J. Dick Cheers, Enrico http://rubiola.org/hidden/collins96comm-zero-crossing-detector.pdf http://rubiola.org/hidden/dick90ptti-dual-mixer-dc-amplifier.pdf Enrico Rubiola

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Peter, The JPL paper is the second on Enrico Rubiola's posting. Pete Rawson ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

ngert > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Enrico Rubiola > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2007 16:25 > An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Ulrich Bangert wrote: > Enrico, > > you are right: Both of these articles should be read with Collins's > perhaps the better (and newer!) one. > > There is however one question remaining for me: When I learned > electronics it was generally considered bad design to let an amplifier > run into limi

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

From: Dr Bruce Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:52:22 +1200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ulrich Bangert wrote: > > Enrico, > > > > you are right: Both of these artic

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

A link to reference 6 in the Collins paper on the design of low jitter hard limiters: http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-107/107D.PDF Bruce ___ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

det: Freitag, 29. Juni 2007 19:09 > An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Betreff: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device > > > Another article (with practical hints) is > > > > OPTIMIZATION OF DUAL-MIXER TIME-DIFFERENCE MULTIPLIER >

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Juerg Koegel >> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2007 19:09 >> An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> Betreff: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device >> >> Another article (with practical hints) is >> >&g

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Ulrich Bangert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:14:02 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Enrico, Ulrich, > you are r

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Magnus Danielson wrote: > Ulrich, > > >> you are right: Both of these articles should be read with Collins's >> perhaps the better (and newer!) one. >> >> There is however one question remaining for me: When I learned >> electroni

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Dr Bruce Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:15:55 +1200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Magnus Danielson wrote: > > Ulrich

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Magnus, This discussion is why I have allowed the ADA4899-1 to saturate in the ZCD posted earlier. The transition times up & down in the second stage are 350 to 400 ns; thus I believe the <50ns overload recovery doesn't degrade the

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pete wrote: > ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false > Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Magnus, > > This discussion is why I have allowed the ADA4899-1 to saturate in the ZCD > posted earlier. The transition times up & down in the second

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating an opamp in saturation for extended periods in a precision circuit is a bad idea, as the changes in dissipation of the various devices in the opamp will change the opamp input offset voltage when it comes out of saturatio

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pete wrote: > Magnus, > > This discussion is why I have allowed the ADA4899-1 to saturate in the ZCD > posted earlier. The transition times up & down in the second stage are 350 > to > 400 ns; thus I believe the <50ns overload recove

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote: > ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false > Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Pete wrote: >> ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false >> Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Magnus, >> >> This discussion is why I have all

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

> The output of an opamp is always referenced to its power supply, > regardless of the configuration. If the power supply is noisy, > the output is noisy. Beyond a few kHz this may be true, but at lower frequencies even a low-grade opamp has excellent rejection of power supply noise. A good opa

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chuck Harris wrote: >> What about the power supply noise that appears at the amplifier output >> during saturation? >> Power supply noise is almost always much larger than the opamp input noise. >> A simple resistor + diode clamp in

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Pete Try changing your input stage to the configuration depicted in the attachment. The input amplifier can then be something like an OP27 without affecting performance. The noise spectrum at the first opamp output will actually be reduced to the opamp (and series resistor) input noise at freq

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

John Miles wrote: >> The output of an opamp is always referenced to its power supply, >> regardless of the configuration. If the power supply is noisy, >> the output is noisy. >> > > Beyond a few kHz this may be true, but at lower frequencies even a low-grade > opamp has excellent rejection o

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the bipolar transistor feedback limiter the attached schematic depicts it in use with both a noninverting and an inverting amplifier. The output voltage swing before clamping is limited by transistor Vbe breakdown. However this can be oversome by adding a

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > John Miles wrote: > >> The output of an opamp is always referenced to its power supply, > >> regardless of the configuration. If the power supply is noisy, > >> the output is noisy. > >> > > > > Beyond a few kHz this may be true, b

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Juerg Koegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:08:47 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Another article

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Saturday 30 June 2007 10:15, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote: > Not true, there's nothing magic about amplifier saturation, any means > that limits the amplifier output whilst dropping the small signal gain > to a low value will hav

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Bob Paddock wrote: > On Saturday 30 June 2007 10:15, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote: > > >> Not true, there's nothing magic about amplifier saturation, any means >> that limits the amplifier output whilst dropping the small signal gain >> to a low value will have exactly the same effect. >>

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > These devices are a little noisy below 100Hz. Rather than constantly battle the "there is to much noise", what are your thoughts on deliberately injecting out-of-band noise? As an example: http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Appl

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

Bob Paddock wrote: >> These devices are a little noisy below 100Hz. >> > > Rather than constantly battle the "there is to much noise", what are > your thoughts on deliberately injecting out-of-band noise? > > As an example: > http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Application_Notes/319765654AN-41

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Dr Bruce Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:02:44 +1200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob > > What is the application

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob Paddock wrote: > "The AD8036 and AD8037, from Analog Devices, are wide bandwidth, low > distortion clamping amplifiers. > The AD8036 is unity gain stable. The AD8037 is stable at a gain of two or > greater. > These devices all

Re: [time-nuts] ? phase comparison or other device

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday 29 June 2007 13:08, Juerg Koegel wrote: > Another article (with practical hints) is> > OPTIMIZATION OF DUAL-MIXER TIME-DIFFERENCE MULTIPLIER > L. Sojdr, J. Cermák, R. Barillet > It is too big for the Time Nuts annex (91