WarrenS wrote:
Long explanations, cause I try to explain, the best I can, when I say
something is "WRONG or misleading"
Magnus Posted:
EFC linearity will remain an issue for analog oscillators.
The oscillator gain will differ depending on offset voltage and
temperature.
TRUE it is an issue, but somewhat misleading because it need NOT be a
problem or limitation (mostly)
EFC Linearity can be an issue because the TPLL is limited by the
"performance" of the reference oscillator in lots of ways.
BUT
Oscillator EFC gain or linearity are not likely to be of much concern
or a limitation for high end performance.
The gain nonlinearity I've measured can vary two to one over the full
range of a good Oscillator but it is more like 10% over the normally
used range, if one stays well away from the end points.
NOT so good but livable if you are not making something real accurate.
BUT
For all my accurate stuff, when using a HP 10811, I limit the
full-scale change to 1e-9 or 1e-8 at most.
This uses such a small part of the total EFC range, that the
nonlinearity effects are generally below the noise level and of little
concern at all.
The fact that Oscillator gain does differ with the EFC voltage (offset
voltage), means if you want to get max accuracy out of the TPLL, it
will need to be calibrated at the EFC offset voltage it is being used
at. One simple solution, if the OSC also has a independent manual
Freq adjustment like the single oven 10811, is to use it always set
the EFC voltage to be near zero volts.
BTW calibration need not be much of a problem, because it can be a
static calibration.
If and only if injection locking isn't significant.
This needs to be established for each setup.
The simplest way to take the effects of injection locking into account
is to measure the effective EFC "gain" with the loop closed.
What I use for a finial calibration & check is the 2G turn over, which
I measure very accurately by other means before hand and then use that
as a known freq offset to check operation and calibration. Of course
there are any number of other ways.
As far as temperature having ANY effect on EFC gain, that is a total
NON issue.
If temperature had any effect on EFC Gain then Temperature would also
effect Osc Frequency at a fixed EFC voltage,
which would then effect the OSC freq drift and stability,
that would then effect anything that the Osc was used for, NOT just
the TPLL.
The TPLL actually has a slight advantage over other methods,
because the PLL will adjust the freq to be correct, even if the EFC
effect should change.
I think it is reasonable to assume that a TPLL weighs in at about
200 USD with all support mixers, amplifiers, ADCs etc. if you don't
have the parts
It is still a fairly cheap solution.
Yes I think that is ONE reasonable number to use and a fair conclusion.
BUT there are others.
The EBAY cost of the TPLL can be easy under $10, not including the
reference Osc and the ADC.
Do note, NONE of items above are plural, Only one is needed per system
unlike some other methods.
Because the cost of the Ref Osc is so variable and depends so much on
what one is doing, I have noticed that its cost is generally not
included in the base price. I think even on the $20K+ TSC 5120A that
the reference Osc is an extra cost option.
The ADC is another BIG variable, depending on your needs and skill
level and junk box, almost no limit in cost at the high end,
and can be as low as $0.00 dollars if you are a student doing a
science project.
It can also be as low as $1.00 if one is good at programming PICS or
other micros with built in ADC's.
The only other major part in the TPLL with any cost over $1 is the
Phase detector.
The one I use most is a micro-circuits $15 single price device, but
I've used all sorts of dual balanced mixers,
and if one is real cheap and good at design, I have found that a PD
based on a 50 cent XOR gate works fine.
ws
*****************************
Bruce
On 14 June 2010 10:46, Magnus Danielson Posted:
Steve
Still puts it in the mid-tau range as a method. The useful range and
precision of a particular implementation of the method will vary.
By putting a GPSDO in the usual place of the DUT and putting the 10811
in place of the reference oscillator it could work well beyond the
1000s point. CAVEAT: this only works for a DUT that has an EFC that is
reasonably linear.
EFC linearity will remain an issue for analog oscillators. The
oscillator gain will differ depending on offset voltage and temperature.
So if you are just thinking about the TPLL for taking ADEV data
from 0.1
to 1000 sec, then you're are missing 90% of the other useful stuff it
can do as good or better than most anything thing else out there, and
all for the same $10 (my cost).
The typical price-tag of a 10811 is in 100-150 USD. I think it is
reasonable
to assume that a TPLL weighs in at about 200 USD with all support
mixers,
amplifiers, ADCs etc. It's not bad, but if you don't have the parts
that's
about what you need to spend at least.
If you really wanted to be a scrooge, you could open the case on one
of those plethera of HP intruments and temporarily borrow that 10811
that is just sitting there. As for something like a ADC, you could
find a DAQ on fleeBay which could do duty here and also be a useful
tool for general purpose use. Heck, you can use your sound card to
digitize the EFC, provided it is DC coupled.
If you don't have the parts, then it will set you back with at least
that number. If you have the parts, you have already invested in them
and payed for them that way. You may be lucky to be given the
oscillator, but honestly you can't rely on that. I just want the cost
numbers to be more reasonably given. It is still a fairly cheap solution.
BTW, with a couple of minor configuration changes, the TPLL BreadBoard
can be transformed into a LPLL,
so the usefulness of the basic Universal TPLL BB circuit has even more
possibilities.
In fact one could make yet another list of all the additional
things it
can do with no added cost,
just by changing a few jumpers and values.
But those things are for later discussions, one windmill at a time.
Measurement of phase noise is what the LPLL is good at, especially
when done
in cross-correlation mode. Interferometric setups use the mixers
better.
Both these techniques could be used for LPLL and TPLL measures.
Do you have some pointers to these setups please Magnus?
Look at Enrico Rubiolas site where his publications and presentations
should be inspirational. His focus is on LPLLs. but the methodology of
cross-correlation and interferometric setup should be as viable in the
TPLL world.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
