On 7/17/2017 1:41 PM, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:07:29 -0700
"Richard (Rick) Karlquist" wrote:
On 7/17/2017 10:54 AM, Azelio Boriani wrote:
This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source?
Yes, that's right, there is no voltage reference with a ma
Attila wrote:
Charles Steinmetz wrote:
how about the LTC1650?
* * *
[it] is nearly 100x (40dB) quieter (30nV/sqrtHz vs. 280) [than the 1650]
I was about to ask the same question :-)
Note: I divided 280 by 30 and got "nearly 100x". D'Oh! Of course, it
is ~10x, or 20dB,
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:24:24 -0400
Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> Well, to name just the first one that comes to mind, how about the
> LTC1650? Like the 1655, it is available in SO and DIP packages. Its
> differential nonlinearity is >2x better than the 1655, it settles 5x
> faster (4uS vs. 20u
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:07:29 -0700
"Richard (Rick) Karlquist" wrote:
> On 7/17/2017 10:54 AM, Azelio Boriani wrote:
> > This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source?
> >
>
> Yes, that's right, there is no voltage reference with a material
> effect on stability or accu
On 7/17/2017 10:54 AM, Azelio Boriani wrote:
This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source?
Yes, that's right, there is no voltage reference with a material
effect on stability or accuracy.
Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing
This implies that in a Rb or Cs there is not a voltage reference source?
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
> HI
>
> This is a limitation on an OCXO based GPSDO. That’s really the bottom line
> here.
> It’s a limitation in an OCXO based part, but not in one based on an Rb or a
>
HI
This is a limitation on an OCXO based GPSDO. That’s really the bottom line
here.
It’s a limitation in an OCXO based part, but not in one based on an Rb or a Cs.
If
the added component costs far more than a Cs, it’s not an answer.
Bob
> On Jul 16, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Chris Albertson
> wrot
What about josephson standards? After all, this is "Time Nuts" and we are
allowed to propose silly-complex solutions to simple problems if it
improves performance even a little.
But seriously I thought the issue of making a perfect voltage standard was
solved because the Volt is defined to be wh
Hi
> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/16/2017 1:51 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>> Hi
>> One gotcha with any ADC or DAC is going to be the reference. There, you are
>> in the same
>> “get what you pay for” dilemma. Stable and noisy, can do. Quiet and not ve
On 7/16/2017 1:51 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
One gotcha with any ADC or DAC is going to be the reference. There, you are in
the same
“get what you pay for” dilemma. Stable and noisy, can do. Quiet and not very
stable, can do.
Both stable and quiet, not so easy if you want it cheap.
Noise can a
Hi
One gotcha with any ADC or DAC is going to be the reference. There, you are in
the same
“get what you pay for” dilemma. Stable and noisy, can do. Quiet and not very
stable, can do.
Both stable and quiet, not so easy if you want it cheap.
Noise can also be the sigma delta ADC’s weak point.
Bert wrote:
We limited to affordable and solderable.
The LTC1655 was the clear winner because
of linearity and temperature
* * *
Five years later I know no better alternative
Well, to name just the first one that comes to mind, how about the
LTC1650? Like the 1655, it is a
12 matches
Mail list logo