> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Low noise frequency multiplication
>
> Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> > Darn, the table is a mess. Here is the corrected one:
> >
> > LVPECL Outputs
> > Hz dBc/Hz
> >
In a message dated 3/2/2007 03:11:25 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phase noise of -115dBc/Hz @ 10Hz for a 100MHz carrier sounds a bit
steep when compared to one of Wenzel's ultra low noise ULN series
which achieves -125dBc/Hz @ 100Hz. (these oscillators are probably the
b
Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> Darn, the table is a mess. Here is the corrected one:
>
> LVPECL Outputs
> HzdBc/Hz
> 1 ?
> 10-127
> 100 -145
> 1k-153
> 10k -158
> 100k -158
> 1M-158
>
> 10MHz OCXO
> HzdBc/Hz
> 1 -100
> 10-130
> 100 -152
> 1k-160
Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> Hi Said,
>
> The DDS idea that you (and Ulrich) suggest sounds like a good plan.
> However, to me your predictions sound overly optimistic.
>
>
>> Said wrote:
>>
>
>
>> But let's say these are as good as advertised, and for me that would mean
>> say better th
Darn, the table is a mess. Here is the corrected one:
LVPECL Outputs
Hz dBc/Hz
1 ?
10 -127
100 -145
1k -153
10k -158
100k-158
1M -158
10MHz OCXO
Hz dBc/Hz
1 -100
10 -130
100 -152
1k -160
10k -165
100k-165
1M -165
Hi Said,
The DDS idea that you (and Ulrich) suggest sounds like a good plan.
However, to me your predictions sound overly optimistic.
>Said wrote:
>But let's say these are as good as advertised, and for me that would mean
>say better than -95dBc/Hz at 10Hz offset from 1GHz carrier, then by reduc
of precise time and frequency measurement
> Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Low noise frequency multiplication
>
>
> Ulrich Bangert wrote:
> > Hi foks,
> >
> > I want to put forward a similar but slightly different question:
> >
> > Suppose I need an clock running a
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:55:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> this is not necessarily as complicated as you mention. If you use a simple
> Exor gate as the phase comparator with the 100MHz (or 1GHz) divided down to
> 10MHz, then there is no dependency between the loop bandwidth to th
In a message dated 3/1/2007 13:30:26 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had never thought about relative performance issues of using a
VCXO locked with a really narrow band PLL to a lower frequency reference
versus a multiplier with a narrow band cleanup filter at the outpu
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
> Hi foks,
>
> I want to put forward a similar but slightly different question:
>
> Suppose I need an clock running at around 50 Mhz for an DDS. Because of
> the DDS it need not be exactly 50 MHz, can be 52 or 54 MHz too.
> Basically this clock shall be derived from a 10 MHz
David I. Emery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 04:02:39AM +1300, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>
>
>> Its not just the temperature coefficients, real inductors and capacitors
>> have inherent phase noise.
>> Silver mica capacitors can be very bad as are ferrite core inductors.
>> Mylar capacitors
Pete wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Can you please provide some references to phase noise problems/performance
> of the passive components you mention?
>
> Pete Rawson
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list
> time-nuts@febo.com
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/l
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 04:02:39AM +1300, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> Its not just the temperature coefficients, real inductors and capacitors
> have inherent phase noise.
> Silver mica capacitors can be very bad as are ferrite core inductors.
> Mylar capacitors are good as are NP0/C0G ceramics a
In a message dated 3/1/2007 05:50:30 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Said,
It seems there are indeed many ways to kill a cat. What happens to the
close-in phase noise using this method?
Cheers,
Stephan.
Hi Stephan,
you are asking the right questions :)
The nea
Bruce,
Can you please provide some references to phase noise problems/performance
of the passive components you mention?
Pete Rawson
___
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
gt; Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2007 16:03
> An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] Low noise frequency multiplication
>
>
> Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Thanks for explaining - the picture is sta
Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks for explaining - the picture is starting to become clearer. I knew
> there must be a reason why commercial multipliers are so expensive.
>
> If I understand you correctly the variation in phase (or group delay) caused
> by a variation in temperatur
Stephen
>It seems there are indeed many ways to kill a cat.
More ways than you could imagine...
IMHO, a 100MHz PLL is likely to give the best results, and is very easy
to implement. A 100MHz crystal oscillator should give very low phase
noise and spur levels; crystals are readily available a
M
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Low noise frequency multiplication
>
>
> In a message dated 2/28/2007 15:20:56 Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> It describes a way in which an analogue odd-order frequency multiplier
> could
In a message dated 2/28/2007 15:20:56 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It describes a way in which an analogue odd-order frequency multiplier could
be built cheaply with superior noise characteristics. This circuit that is
described is really simple and quite ingenious. Unfo
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:19:31 +0200, "Stephan Sandenbergh"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How difficult is it to multiply a frequency standard from 10MHz to 100MHz?
WA1ZMS has successfully done the kind of thing you want to do. He used a
clean 5 MHz OCXO as a source to generate milimeter wave LO's. S
ephan.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dr Bruce Griffiths
> Sent: 01 March 2007 03:52 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Low noise frequency multiplication
>
> Stephan S
n.
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Rick Karlquist
>> Sent: 01 March 2007 01:42 AM
>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>> Cc: 'Discussion of precise
precise time and frequency measurement
> Cc: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Low noise frequency multiplication
>
> Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> > How difficult is it to multiply a frequency standard from 10MHz to
&g
Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> How difficult is it to multiply a frequency standard from 10MHz to 100MHz?
>
>
>
> I found the recent discussion about amplifying a 10MHz OCXO output from 5dBm
> to 15dBm very interesting. Thanks Bruce for sending me that common base
> circuit schem
Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
> How difficult is it to multiply a frequency standard from 10MHz to 100MHz?
>>
>
> The other day I stumbled across the following article on Wenzel's website:
>
> http://www.wenzel.com/pdffiles/RFDesign2.pdf
>
>
>
> It describes a way in which an analogue odd-
As always, "without degrading the phase noise" is only half of the spec.
The other half is "at offsets of X Hz and beyond." What is X? It can make
all the difference.
I'd look at using a PLL to lock a 100 MHz VCXO to your 10 MHz source. If
you are willing to lock one crystal oscillator to anoth
27 matches
Mail list logo
