John Miles wrote: > 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 (if still error-prone when executed manually). > > -- john, KE5FX > > Such a calibration standard is also useful as a quick check to see if its phase noise can be seen at the appropriate level above the noise floor. If not there's a serious problem, if it can be seen then there may be just a calculation error.
Bruce _______________________________________________ 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.
